I don't believe that. I suspect that the EU is delighted with Cameron and his use of the veto was arranged between them.
Do you believe that if they really wanted the UK's agreement to treaty changes they would not have made concessions on City regulation, or come up with some face saving form of words?
Consider what would have happened if Cameron had not used his veto. He would have had to get the UK Parliament to agree to the treaty changes. He could probably have got that with the support of the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but not without some major battles with the wild eyed europhobes in the Conservative Party.
He would also have had to have a national referendum on the changes [a legal requirement]. The public view of the EU has been so contaminated by foreign owned newspapers that I doubt if he could have won the referendum.
I think it likely that other EU countries, such as Ireland, would have had to hold referendums, or have had trouble getting the summit plan through their national parliaments.
The result would have been long delays and ultimate failure. That would have been a disaster for the euro.
The actual outcome resulting from Cameron's veto is
1. The EU can move ahead quickly on its plan.
2. There has been no tiresome need to involve parliaments or voters.
3. Cameron neatly avoids a conflict with the tin foil helmet element in his party.
The europhobes do not appear to have spotted how clever Cameron has been and how wonderfully the they have been screwed. Even when it does dawn on them what can they do?
Don't believe it? Well, apply the lawyers test of Cui bono [who benefits]. Who benefits from what has happened?
Why, goodness me, its the two gentlemen in the photograph above.